Ever since the Rox vs. Knicks Finals was one of the lowest watched NBA Finals in history and the next year Clyde was thrown out in the '95 playoffs, I've questioned the intregity of the league and wondered if it wasn't more interested in profits than letting the best team win. I'm not saying that the league picks the teams it wants to play in the Championship, but rather that they try to lengthen the series as long as possible to gain as much revenue - e.g.) a six or seven game series gains more revenue than a four or five game series. However, the effects of letting a team back in a series could have an effect on the overall series. Do you think the league (or David Stern) has an underlying desire to manipulate the length of the series or are there just some unfortunate coincidences in officiating? Obviously the motive is present, but is the league - from top to bottom immune (obviously Donaghy wasn't)? Your thoughts?
My inner conspiracy theorist says yes. I mean what was the practical reason for lengthening the first round playoffs from 5 games to 7? Revenue of course. This change came when Jordan retired. My theory was that with the vacuum present after Jordan left, Stern needed to find a way to make back the money he would lose. First, he would find another Jordan type player. He's done this successfully with Lebron and to a lesser extent Kobe and maybe Wade. Second, he would have to make the playoffs longer, which he did. It provides more excitement to basketball purists, but maybe not as much to the casual fun. But, it still provides the opportunity to rake up the cash from TV network deals and sponsorships.
You're talking about a conspiracy to commit fraud. Uhhh no. Everyone wants a game 7 if they are guaranteed to win the series; The league, the owners, the players and the fans all have something to gain. At most, the league could demand the refs to crack down on certain calls that can disrupt the flow of the natural game in favor of one team or another. Only the players themselves can throw a game, but they make so much money it would be silly to intentionally throw a game.
this is what i think happens, the refs try to call it evenly, as in keep the game close, therefore maybe giving one team a call if they need 2 pts to tie, in hopes that it will stay that way and keep games competitive and interesting, but as the game progresses, sometimes some teams are simply going to take over or fizzle out. Like in game 1, there's no way they could keep the game close without making it look really obvious, houston was just too hot. So then they tend to favor the team with the momentum, but will try to make it close if given the chance.
I don't like how the officiating is the variable that is adjusted by request of stern to favor either a bigger market team or just simply to extend a series for more ad revenue. The ridiculous calls last night convince me of this. As soon as the rox are taking a 6 point lead, you simply allow priscilla to flop, yao picks up a 3rd or 4th foul and sits allowing the blzrs to make a run. We saw it on the road in cleveland when they called Yao for everything and took him out of the game. It's not by chance or human error--I know this for sure despite what anyone thinks.
if that's true, the spurs would never be in the finals at all. their presence has produced the lowest ratings in the history of the NBA. sure the league does want certain teams to be successful and certain players to do well. but i think the league has been pretty good. remember, we haven't had repeat championships the last 6-7 years
The refs can get players into foul trouble much sooner or later than you can imagine. Why does Yao or Scola get into foul trouble in the first half limiting their playing time in some games, whereas in others they don't get called for anything? Maybe it's just bad luck or maybe we just got away with calls in the past or maybe the refs are just making up bad calls in the past, but why do we see so many series where one team complete anniliates another in one game to lose in game 2. See Rox/Blazers, Heat/Hawks, Bulls/Celts, DAL/SAS - all of these games were so lopsided in game 1 to lose game 2 seems a little fishy? Maybe it's legit, but what if it isn't?
Ah, the spurs are boring theory. Well, Stern allowed that simply to create the illusion of fairness. Remember the Fisher .4 second shot--the crappy stern giveth, and taketh away. Years later, Stern helps SA win the division with more shot clock voodoo in Sacramento. You don't think he can make that type of thing reviewable? It's a dirty, money driven league just like college--the only diff. is the prostitutes(players) get a hefty cut in the pros. Even if SA had low ratings, an extra game will still generate more revenue.
This is the one example that makes me believe that the league isn't fixed, but that the league (or Stern) just tries to drag out a series for more $.
Lets see, if you're saying what I think you're saying, then ur admitting a couple of things. Yao isn't the draw/money maker people make him out to be or this is a Dumb Ass Thread. So let me start with the 1st and maybe it will answer the question. The Yao-Yi regular season game had a draw of 200m tvs. That would make it the most watched tv even ever by a longshot. So if the nba could get $5 per every tv if yao was in the finals, that's at least 1b. If the nba had yao in the finals, wouldn't that make the most money for the nba?
No b/c those overseas viewers are not going to go test drive the all new 2009 Ford F150 that was advertised in the game and roll on home in a new truck......so that kind of viewership has less effect on ad dollars/rates. Ads in the superbowl were more expensive than the Yao-Yi games by a longshot and there were fewer viewers. Again, popularity, hype and such translates to more money minus the Spurs exception which is Stern's way of helping out the city where he probably has a relative running a hotel/restaurant or something, something.
I think you misinterpret my post. I didn't say the league was fixed, as I don't think it is - (see SAS), but rather that I think they try to extend series as long as possible - which sometimes effects the outcome of the series. Maybe a more recent reminder should be the infamous Finley out of bounds call which should have given us a 3-1 lead against Dallas, but by extending the series Dallas outplayed us in 2 of the last 3 games and got the win - which I don't think the league anticipated.
Not only that, but the all of a sudden shift in the way they called moving screens on Yao at the most in opportune time. It always seemed to either be to stop a Rockets run, or continue a Dallas run. It would never come when both teams were trading buckets, or both teams were cold.
Considering that 88+% of the respondants thus far believe the league is either rigged or the league lengthens the series for financial purposes, I don't believe this is a "dumb ass thread" but thanks for your input.
don't worry bro, b4 donaghy was busted, these same folks would argue that games were not rigged for profit.
I would have said you might have some rogue officials or whatever. I mean, the Kings/Lakers series is about as close to ironclad evidence you are ever going to get.
Unlike the superbowl and the nfl, the nba depend a lot on global money. The money they can charge to show the finals to the asian continent if yao vs whoever would be crazy. There wouldn't be a higher viewership worldwide than houston vs cleveland. Those global dollars would trump any conspiracy people bring up.
